Dismissed

M/S. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa v. the Superintending Engineer

Madras HC13 Apr 2023WP/12883/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses two writ petitions filed by two paper industries challenging water consumption charge demand orders issued by the State Engineering Department. The Court held that industries must pay charges and that calculations must be reconciled through competent authorities, not by High Court inquiries, and payment cannot be delayed under the guise of clarification.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/S. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 13.04.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1, 1 & 2 of 2008

¶8

M/s.Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Paper Mills Ltd., Palani Road, Swaminathapuram, Madathukulam – 642 113, Udumalpet Taluk, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Mr.V.Devarajan

¶9

...Petitioner in W.P.No.12883/2008

¶10

M/s.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Ltd., Palani Road, Swaminathapuram Madathukulam – 642 113, Udumalpet Taluk, Represented by its Chief Engineer, Mr.V.Devarajan

¶11

...Petitioner in W.P.No.12884/2008

¶12

-Vs-

¶13

1.The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O., Special Project Circle, Palani.

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/5

¶16

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008

¶17

2.The District Collector, Dindigul.

¶18

...Respondents in both W.Ps

¶19

Common Prayer: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order bearing No.VaaPaa/VaaA2/Ko.29/General/40/08 dated 21.04.2008 of the 1^st respondent and quash the same and direct the 1^st respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner for waiver of interest and penal charges in terms of the direction of this Hon'ble Court in the Order dated 28.02.2006 in W.P.No.26358 of 2001 etc.,

¶20

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Kalyana Raman for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia (in both W.Ps)

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.T.Arun Kumar Additional Government Pleader (in both W.Ps)

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

The orders of demand to pay the water consumption charges issued

¶24

by the 1^st respondent in proceedings dated 21.04.2008 are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

2/5

¶27

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008

¶28

2.The petitioners are M/s.Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Paper Mills Limited and M/s.Vishnuvardhan Paper Mills Limited respectively. The petitioners admittedly were consuming water from the River Amaravathi for their industrial usage and with reference to the usage of water, the 1^st respondent issued orders dated 21.04.2008, demanding the arrears of water charges to be paid by the petitioners.

¶29

No doubt, the industries on the usage of river water is bound to pay the water charges to the Government. If at all, any dispute regarding the calculation or otherwise, they are bound to approach the authorities for clarification or to get further details regarding the assessment made by the competent authorities for such demand. Contrarily, High Court cannot interfere with such demand letters issued by the competent authorities to recover the water consumption charges. More specifically, the petitioner has utilized the water from the river for industrial purposes and that being the case, they are bound to settle the water charges. The discrepancies, if any, in the orders of demand, are to be rectified only through the authorities and the High Court in a writ proceedings, cannot conduct a roving inquiry regarding the manner through which the calculations are made and the demand orders are passed.

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

3/5

¶32

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008

¶33

4.Thus, the petitioners are at liberty to seek clarification if any

¶34

doubt remains or otherwise and the water consumption charges are bound to be settled in accordance with the law. Merely under the guise of clarification, the petitioners shall not delay the payment of water charges which is statutory in nature.

¶35

5.Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs.

¶36

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

13.04.2023

¶38

Index:Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes kak

¶39

¶40

1.The Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. W.R.O., Special Project Circle, Palani.

¶41

2.The District Collector, Dindigul.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

4/5

¶44

W.P.Nos.12883 & 12884 of 2008

¶45

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

¶46

kak

¶47

W.P.Nos.12884 & 12885 of 2008

¶48

13.04.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

5/5

M/S. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamilnadu Vs The Principal and Secretary

S.Mayilathal Vs The Additional District

K.R.Suryakumar Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Dr.v.Kumaran Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board

N.Manikyaraju Vs the Tahsildar

M/s.Sri Kusuma Haranath Vs Appasamy Subramani